Science That Doesn’t Add Up: A Discussion Paper
I am reminded of the orbit of mercury and how the missing term in Einstein’s theory of Relativity was discovered, that of the effect of the gravity of the sun and Mercury being in such close proximity. Mass and Gravity are all interlinked, what if the speed of light is also interlinked?
What if the speed of light is almost a constant here on the earth, but affected by the local gravity, then the universe is not expanding let alone expanding more quickly!
What if, as you move further and further away FROM a Mass the gravitational effects upon the speed of light get smaller and smaller and the apparent speed goes UP!
Space is not empty. The local space is populated by primitive particles, Energy, or light has to negotiate a pathway from (a) to (b) through all those particles, therefore does NOT travel in straight lines, and curved lines mean the apparent speed is slower than if the path were absolutely straight.
Another point for discussion.
The background reflections of the big bang are an illusion, they are the effects of the viewing mechanisms, is it not curious that as better telescopes are used that distance to that background radiation is getting further and further away?
These two contentious ideas when combined constitute a way to resolve the enigmas of the universe. Is it truly infinite? The portions we can see are relatively fixed on short time scales yet in constant motion when one considers the movements of Galaxy’s. Gravity will get smaller as one leaves the local effects behind, BUT it will never be reduced to ZERO!
I was amazed at the deep field view of galaxies at extreme distance thousands of them in a small patch of sky that looked empty, when one examines those galaxies one sees all sorts, older, regular galaxy’s, nebulae, collisions. Galaxies edge on while others are true spirals, a classic mixture, yet all un-imaginably far away and therefore OLD! Very Old.
A galaxy like the Milky Way took billions of years to form, it is involved in collisions with minor galaxies, it has evolved, so to have those galaxies all that far away as seen in the Deep Field view.
If those galaxies were closer to the centre of the universe would they look the same or different to local space. They look identical!
How can that be so, they are billions of years older than the Milky Way, yet look the same!
We have the means to test these curios factors. Voyager 1 and Voyager 2. Why are they a bit further away than their predicted positions?
The international space station, set up an experiment to measure the speed of light and watch it change ever so slightly as the moon’s gravity waxes and wanes.
A final discussion point.
How much energy from the sun gets to the Earth, Is it the same sort of energy?
Think about it, that ball of Nuclear fusion is radiating energy effectively constant energy as it consumes it vast amount of hydrogen fuel, several tens of billion years till the sun goes dark.
The Sun has an Atmosphere that is also radiating energy, those solar prominences radiate in every direction.
That Atmosphere is also ejecting raw particles, the solar wind, how much energy is there in that.
A quiet sun has deeper implications than just a few Kw per second here on Earth.
I am an old man; a trained logician and things just did not add up. So, I offer these thoughts and musings for comments.
Regards,
Michael Logician
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
If you believe in logic sand reason you cannot believe Einstein’s theories. They are self contradictory.
Gravity and mass are not connected. Gravity produces motion. Mass produces inertia. How can the same thing produce both motion and resistance to motion? There is no mass, just energy fields and electric fields. Energy is attracted to positive electric fields and repels negative electric fields. Positive electric fields are surround by energy fields resisting the movement of the positive field and giving the appearance of mass.
Light is a change in density in the energy which causes a disturbance in the negative electric field surrounding the matter (electric) field. The speed changes with the strength of the fields. It does to travel in a straight-line or a curved line but is propagated in all directions by objects. When we see light or an image it appears as a straight line but it has been refracted and continually changes directions. A straight line should be defined as the path of an electromagnetic wave, not the shortest distance between two points. (How can you determine the distance without an electromagnetic wave?) When you look through a telescope you are not just seeing galaxies in that direction but the bending light coming from other directions. The universe is spherical and one of the “older” galaxies you may be seeing is the other side of the Milky Way.
The energy field of the sun decreases with distance and continues to expand until it encounters an equal energy field expanding from another object (Earth). What the sun transmits to Earth is not energy but a disturbance (change of strength) that causes changes in the energy field surrounding the Earth. The equilibrium and sizes of the electric and energy fields change and that is transmitted through the entire fields coming from the Earth and radiated in all directions.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You quickly wrote the following in reply to Michael’s essay. Which I, having learned a little bit about Michael, consider that he spent days, maybe weeks, maybe longer pondering that which he submitted to PSI.
“If you believe in logic sand reason you cannot believe Einstein’s theories. They are self contradictory. Gravity and mass are not connected. Gravity produces motion. Mass produces inertia. How can the same thing produce both motion and resistance to motion?”
When I read what you wrote I am reminded of the historical fact that for about a half century no Geologist dared suggest thatcontinents had drifted. For the proponents of this possibility, for which they had observed many evidences which pointed to this possibility, made the mistake to try to explain how this possible drift could have occurred.
Herb, what was being ignored is that what is clearly observed (evidence) does not need to be explained to establish the potential ‘truth’ of what has been clearly seen by all.
Herb, you are trying the same trick to tempt Michail so you can criticize any attempt to answer your question.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Thank you Jerry, Indeed I have spent many weeks constructing and re-constructing this initial discussion paper.
What Herb is describing is pretty much EXACTLY what my paper opens up for discussion. What can be seen to be happening at the local level, as apart from what pertains at the interstellar and inter galactic levels.
I have some serious doubts about what Herb is postulating as do others, but if one applies blinkers one can see where he is coming from.
Regards
Michael (Logician).
Reply
MeentosKa
| #
сервис прогона по трастовым сайтам
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael and PSI Readers,
First to PSI Readers: Hopefully you will become a part of the discussion that Michael hopes his essay will create.
To Michael:: Have you read Galileo’s and Newton’s well-known books but seldom read books? Do you accept that which I just wrote? Which is my opinion that these books have been seldom read by those who might be reading what I write and what you just wrote?
When I finally read these books after they had been translated to the English language, I read that these two authors were aware of what I term ‘ancient history’. The structure of Galileo’s book was a factious discussion (dialogue). So, all the characters of this dialogue knew what Aristotle had written nearly two thousand years earlier in a different language.
In this dialogue an issue became: Did Aristotle ever drop bodies from high places and observe when they reached the ground? In other words: Can we trust what we read?
Just last week I listened to a sermon by a minister whom I respect and is my friend. And in this sermon my friend made a point about the ‘fact’ that the distance between Bethlehem and Egypt was 2,000 miles. This because he had Glooged: What is the distance between Bethlehem and Cairo and read 2,000 miles. And I when I called this mistake to his attention he even question the map which was in the back of my Bible. And I pointed to the observed fact that once some humans invest in a wrong idea, that it is very difficult to change what they believe to be the TRUTH.
I did not ask him, but I did think: Did you mother not teach you that you should not believe everything you read?
This comment has two points: To have a meaning full discussion the participators need to accept there is HISTORY and each have a general knowledge of what this history is. Next, we need to evaluate what we have read about history is actually valid (accurate, the Truth).
A sase in point: I just read about Torricelli’s invention of the barometer. And I read that before he invented the mercury barometer he had first made a water barometer with a tube that was over ten meters long and stuck out the roof of his home. Initially I did not question this history. But finally I questioned: How at that early time did Torricelli have access to a glass tube that was more than ten meters long? Hence, I had to reason that he did not and that the author of what I had just read had written a fictional story.
So, the point of this comment is before we can have a meaningful, productive discussion we must review and evaluate what we can agree about before we begin to discuss what it is that this history teaches us.
And I agree with Michael such a discussion could be very productive as we share the knowledge of our individual, diverse experiences.
For I believe that Einstein was correct when he stated: “The only source of knowledge is experience.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
And I pointed to the observed fact that once some humans invest in a wrong idea, that it is very difficult to change what they believe to be the TRUTH.
Over millions of years of evolution the human mind evolved the ability to believe deeply in untruths. It is a social adaptation that enabled us to form larger, more coordinated groups. The mechanism works by way of blocking comprehension of details within our intellect that would allow us to see the absurdity of what we believe. For example, with meteorology that we have the concept of moist air being lighter than dry air and, consequently, the moist air is more buoyant and rushes up through the dry air, creating a storm. Positing that the evaporated moisture in moist air has become gaseous, completely defying its known boiling temperature/pressure–an absurd supposition that has zero empirical support–this notion it is deeply believed producing the requisite dull-wittedness in its adherents who become deaf and dumb when asked to explain how it is possible for moist air to be lighter than dry air.
Jerry, you need to stop lecturing other people to do what you won’t.
The religion that science has become and the realization of vortice plasma
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/The-religion-that-science-has-become-and-the-realization-of-vortice-plasma-ehrkj3
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
You have just made my point. I wrongly believe that the much of the water of the atmosphere is actually water molecules (Vapor); yet you can believe that there are no water molecules in the atmosphere. What you just claimed is commonly called. hypocrisy.
But I have and others have studied the diffusion of the divalent lead and/or cadmium cations in highly purified sodium chloride, or potassium chloride single crystals. To do this this experiment we evaporated a solution Lead Choride and/or Cadium Choride which contain a portion of radioactive isotopes of Lead and/or Cadium in the bottom of a glass tube, and then place a smaller glass tube opt the tube and then place two single crystals on top of the smaller so that there can be no physical contact between any of the solid or liquid (depending upon the temperature of the diffusion experiment). This so only the vapor of the lead choride and/or the cadmium chloride can be source of the Lead and/or cadmium cations we observe the diffusion of in the single crystals.
So, I know by observation that these ionic compounds, whose melting and boiling temperature’s are far above the melting and boiling temperatures of water, must vaporize to ionic molecules. Which is enough evidence for me to conclude with many others that individual, indep[endent water molecules exist in the atmosphere.
What is your ‘evidence’ that water molecules do not exist in the atmosphere. Then there is also the evidence of the formation of ‘dew’ on surfaces which most everyone has seen or felt (if blind).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Particularly those readers who have had few academic experiences with the study of the activity termed SCIENCE and come to PSI to learn a bit about what SCIENCE is. Michael Clarke and I met here at PSI because I had written an essay, partially based on information I had learned from Richard Cronin whom I credited as being a co-author of my essays titled: Prehistoric Glaciers Could Have Been Formed Part !. And we become friends who are learning a bit of knowledge from each other’s experiences.
If you type ‘Prehistoric Glaciers’ into the PSI search function and hit return or enter on your key board, you can find the link to this essay.
If doing this seems to require too much of effort, you have answered the question: Do I really want to learn about SCIENCE?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
As we discussed glaciers you asked: Where does the sand come from?
A day of two ago, I happened upon a TV program which was focusing on the sand of the Arabian Peninsula and some of the life which lived there. And some of these living creatures were birds. And these birds were shown wading in a some puddle of water. But the question was never asked: What is this puddle doing in the midst of this huge (a point of emphasis of the program which was nearly surrounded by the water of an ocean)?
I believe you will admit that this is a good mystery on which to focus our attention. And because I am competitive I will give you my explanation where the water of the puddle of water came from when it seldom every rains on the sand of this ‘dry’ and ‘hot’ desert.
In ‘The Holy Bible’ I read that in the beginning it never rained but the plants were watered by the dew which formed during the nighttime. It is somewhat general knowledge that deserts which become very hot during the day also become quite cold during the nighttime.
The peninsula is nearly surrounding water which is also quite ‘warm and we observe that the surface of the ocean does not ‘cool’ near as much as does the sand of the desert. I could go on etc etc but we know (once we accurately describe (define) this natural system) that the water vapor of the atmosphere, from the ocean, is going to condense on the cold sand surface during the nighttime.
And in the show one could plainly see that the surface of the sand which blew from here to there was far from ‘level.’. Hence, the dew which condensed on the sand surface, flowed downward both vertically and horizontally to form small puddles of liquid water on the surface.
Since you wrote your essay to initiate a discussion, what is your take on what I have described?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Forgot (as common) to conclude with the question: Where did the sand come from?
Reply